Correction to Commons Written Answer

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Diana Johnson) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	An error has been identified in the answer to PQ 280449 from 19 June 2009, (Official Report, col. 527W). The Answer should have been:
	The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has provided the information in the following tables. The tables record figures for Great Britain.
	Injuries to pupils/students1 aged 1 to 18 years, reported to all enforcing authorities2, 2003-04 to 2007-083
	
		
			 Fatal injuries 
			 Month Year Total 
			  2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08  
			 April - - - - - - 
			 May - - - - - - 
			 June 1 - - - - 1 
			 July - 1 - - - 1 
			 August - - - - - - 
			 September - - - 1 - 1 
			 October - - - - - - 
			 November - - 1 - - 1 
			 December 1 - 2 - - 3 
			 January - - - - - - 
			 February - 1 - - - 1 
			 March - - - 1 - 1 
			 Total 2 2 3 2 - 9 
		
	
	
		
			 Non-fatal injuries 
			 Month Year Total 
			  2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08  
			 April 134 150 203 294 353 1,134 
			 May 171 257 297 544 554 1,823 
			 June 297 225 295 605 522 1,944 
			 July 179 168 185 345 333 1,210 
			 August 25 37 29 40 50 181 
			 September 226 290 301 758 714 2,289 
			 October 247 245 304 722 828 2,346 
			 November 259 327 671 848 1,005 3,110 
			 December 167 158 406 453 504 1,688 
			 January 236 264 626 719 800 2,645 
			 February 220 211 521 549 664 2,165 
			 March 372 242 827 829 708 2,978 
			 Total 2,533 2,574 4,665 6,706 7,035 23,513 
		
	
	1 Identified by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC2000) code 0002 'Student'.
	2 Injuries are reported and defined under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995. These include injuries to employees, self-employed people and members of the public (including students). The information available under RIDDOR 95 includes two categories of severity for members of the public: fatal injuries and non-fatal injuries that cause a person to be taken from the site of the accident to hospital.
	3 The annual basis is the planning year 1 April to 31 March.
	The original answer was incorrect because of an administrative error. Instead of information on children aged from one to 18 being reported, information on children aged one or 18 was supplied, thereby omitting information on those aged between two and 17.

Courts Service and Tribunals Service

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Jack Straw) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget today that the Ministry of Justice will be moving to bring together Her Majesty's Courts Service and the Tribunals Service into a new single organisation.
	Her Majesty's Courts Service and the Tribunals Service between them provide the administration for the courts in England and Wales and most of the non-devolved tribunals in the United Kingdom. They share the common purpose of providing access to justice, whether in the criminal, civil or administrative justice fields. We aim to bring these broadly similar functions together into a new single organisation for the efficient delivery of access to justice.
	Creating a unified service holds out the prospect of significant benefits to the users of courts and tribunals, to the taxpayer and to the administration of justice generally. There is the potential for improved service provision for users through joint administration and shared hearing venues. The new arrangements will also facilitate the building of a unified judicial family in England and Wales.
	The new structure will preserve the unique and distinctive features of both systems while taking advantage of the benefits to users, judges and staff from closer working. We will ensure that the statutory responsibilities of both the Lord Chief Justice for the courts and the Senior President of Tribunals for the tribunals are respected and preserved. There are also a number of important differences between the two organisations which will need to be given careful consideration in planning for the new organisation. These include the different territorial coverage of HMCS and the Tribunals Service, their different governance arrangements and judicial structures and the different regional and jurisdictional structures currently in place.
	In addition, and following a recent public consultation on the future of the Parole Board, we will consider the opportunities that this new organisation offers to secure the board's position in the justice system, so that it is best placed to deliver timely, rigorous and fair decisions.
	A considerable amount of detailed planning will need to take place before the new organisation can be formed and we will be working together closely in the coming months to design arrangements that will work effectively and deliver the desired results. There will be full consultation on the developed proposals with those representing users of the courts and tribunals, the judiciary, trades unions and all of those affected in the Scottish and Northern Irish legal systems and wider public before implementation.

Debt and Reserves Management Report

Lord Myners: My honourable friend, the Exchequer Secretary has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Debt and Reserves Management Report 2010-11 is being published today. Copies have been deposited in the Libraries of the House.

HMS "Victory"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Margaret Hodge) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The wreck of "Balchin's Victory", lost in 1744, was discovered in the English Channel in 2009. In view of the unique importance of this find for naval heritage and the intrinsic value of the wreck as a cultural artefact, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are issuing a public consultation paper on the future management approach for the wreck site. The consultation paper will be available through the websites of both departments, and can be found at http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/ AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/ConsultationsandCommunications/PublicConsultations/.
	Hard copies of the paper are also available on request.

Local Government

Lord McKenzie of Luton: On Monday 22 March, the House approved by 169 to 110 an amendment, moved by Baroness Butler-Sloss, to the motion to approve the draft Norwich and Norfolk (Structural Changes) Order 2010 (the Norwich Order) which inserted at the end of the motion,
	"but this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have laid before Parliament the draft Order, which does not comply with the Government's published criteria with respect to affordability of the future structure, without providing more evidence on whether the course proposed is likely to achieve its declared policy objective; and calls on Her Majesty's Government not to proceed with the draft Order before conducting further consultation with the residents of Norwich and Norfolk".
	The amended motion approving the draft order was agreed by the House. A similarly amended Motion approving the draft Exeter and Devon (Structural Changes) Order 2010 (the Exeter order) was also agreed by the House.
	The Government welcome the approval by the House of the draft orders, and note that the House disagreed by 54 to 118 in the case of the Norwich order, and by 53 to 110 in the case of the Exeter order, with amendments, moved by Lord Tope, that would have resulted in the orders not being approved. However, the Government are disappointed that the House regrets the draft orders were laid before Parliament and, in light of the very full debate on Monday, have carefully considered the request of the House not to proceed with the draft orders before conducting further consultation with the residents of the areas involved.
	The Government take very seriously the concerns and requests of the House but, for the reasons set out below, have decided that it is right now to proceed and to make the orders that the House has approved.
	We remain of the view, as I set out in Monday's debate, that stakeholders and the public in the areas concerned have been consulted more than adequately. Any case for further consultation can be justified only if some who might have expected to have been consulted have not been, or those consulted have not been given sufficient information to comment on the proposals. The Government are clear that neither of these circumstances arises.
	50,000 responses were received by the Government in response to our consultation period March to July 2007 on 16 unitary proposals. The Boundary Committee received a further 20,000 responses during its consideration of the issue in Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk. The Government subsequently received 2,800 representations during the six weeks ending 19 January 2010, all from a mix of local people, the councils elected to represent them, other public sector organisations, businesses and third sectors. This was in addition to numerous meetings with councils in the affected areas. Moreover, during Monday's debate we heard noble Lords relay the views of various organisations and, of course, of local people.
	It is not the case, as Baroness Shephard of Northwold suggested, that the Government have legislated to ensure the public could not be consulted. The legislation provides for consultation with the councils affected and with such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Whilst the Secretary of State specifically sought views from the councils and those organisations well placed to comment on the proposals, we made clear that responses were welcome from anyone, and as I told the House, specifically asked the local councils to bring these matters to the attention of their communities.
	The range of comments received demonstrates that consultees had more than sufficient information to comment fully on the proposals. Many focused their comments on the merits of the two-tier status quo arrangements, without necessarily referring to the criteria or to how particular unitary proposals matched up against those criteria. Others commented, again without necessarily referring to all or any of the criteria, about how any change to unitary structures was unnecessary as the two-tier system as modernised was delivering the same benefits as could be expected from unitary local government. Many referred to the impact of the current economic climate, some seeing this as reasons for not implementing unitary proposals, others seeing this as a reason for so doing.
	Moreover, the longer-term outcomes specified by the strategic leadership and value for money services criteria are closely interconnected with questions about how the unitary structures would impact on the local economy and how the new Total Place approach could affect the delivery of local public services. Some when commenting referred to economic questions and collaborative partnership working characterised by the Total Place approach.
	In short, the Government are clear that the case is not made out for further consultation, whether it is further consultation with residents or consultation with particular bodies.
	As I put to noble Lords during Monday's debate, it is important to remember that the essential issue is whether the cities of Exeter and Norwich should have unitary councils with all the benefits that brings. Evidence of such benefits was outlined by noble Lords during the debate.
	My noble friend, the Baroness Hollis of Heigham, highlighted how, as a unitary borough council prior to 1974, Norwich was able to attract business investment, built an airport and the city college and established what is now the University of East Anglia. But since it became a city council, its ability to act decisively in the interests of its residents has been fettered. My noble friend, Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, gave examples of how the needs of Exeter as a city are not being met. For example, Exeter City Council wanted to set up a trust foundation for education that was supported by the university, Exeter college and everyone in Exeter; it was stopped by the education department in the county council. She likewise referred to a new waste-to-energy building being developed in Exeter without any consultation with councillors in Exeter. My noble friend Lord Whitty referred to an article written by the chair of the Exeter Chamber of Commerce indicating all the frustrations which businesses in Exeter have with the two-tier system.
	My noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport cited the European Institute for Urban Affairs which had concluded that "where cities have been given more freedom and resources, there is evidence they have responded by being more proactive, entrepreneurial and successful." He reminded the House that you cannot produce evidence for something that has not yet happened. But as he said evidence from the past is that Norwich has been poorly served by Norfolk as Lady Hollis described; evidence from the present is that Norwich has been shortlisted for selection as the UK City of Culture in 2013. Baroness Murphy explained that what is good for the regional development of East Anglia and Norfolk as a whole, is what is crucial for Norwich-a centre of power to drive the local economy. Lord Elystan-Morgan concluded that the communities in Exeter and Norwich "are giants with immense potential, but are shackled by the present system. It is right and proper that they should be given the opportunity to develop that potential".
	In short, whilst as I recognised in Monday's debate the question whether to have unitary councils is one that is hotly debated, there is clear evidence of the benefits that unitary city councils can bring, evidence which the Government believe is sufficient for there to be confidence that the course we are proposing will achieve its declared policy objective, namely to promote the economic, social, and environmental success of the cities and surrounding county areas.
	The affordability criterion provides that a change to unitary structures should have a payback period of no more than five years and that all costs incurred as a result of reorganisation are met locally without increasing council tax. The Government accept that the proposals for a unitary Exeter and a unitary Norwich do not meet this criterion to a limited degree, having payback periods a little longer than five years. There is no evidence to support the suggestion of Lord Burnett that a unitary Exeter will cost the average Band D council tax payer in Devon approximately £200 a year extra. The Government also accept that the Norwich proposal, before the new Total Place approach to service delivery is taken into account, does not meet the value for money on services criterion. But, considered on their merits, the Government are clear that the risks of a slightly longer payback period are outweighed by the benefits for the local economy that unitary councils would bring, benefits the likelihood of which is supported not least by the evidence heard in Monday's debate, and that with the new Total Place approach, Norwich will be able to shape and jointly deliver high-quality services across the whole area, with the economies that brings, but which also meet the diverse needs of urban and rural communities.
	Moreover, as I explained to the House, if we proceed now the new unitary councils can be implemented in April 2011, already over four years after the original unitary proposals were made by the elected city councils for Exeter and Norwich. Any further delay now would make that date impossible, with implementation at its earliest being in April 2012.
	Accordingly, for all the reasons above, the Government have concluded that it is now right to proceed. The other pace has now approved the draft orders, by 251 to 163 in the case of Exeter, and by 249 to 171 in the case of Norwich. In all the circumstances, therefore, the Government now intend to make the Exeter and Norwich orders as soon as practicable.

Nuclear Decommissioning Agency: Springfield Site

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I would like to inform the House that the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (NDA) has successfully reached agreement with Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (WEC) on new commercial arrangements for the Springfields site and fuel manufacturing. The agreement will see the commercial operations and staff fully transfer to WEC, which is the current site management contractor, and the NDA land leased to WEC on a long-term basis. In addition to providing an income stream for the NDA, the new arrangements and plans for the site are expected to significantly reduce the NDA's decommissioning liabilities, representing excellent value for the UK taxpayer.
	We welcome and fully support the agreement, which is expected to protect and enhance the site's long-term commercial sustainability through investment and expansion of existing fuel operations. The agreement further demonstrates that major energy companies are gearing up for significant investment in the low carbon energy sector in the UK.
	In this context, a direction modifying the Energy Act designating directions for the Springfields site has been laid before Parliament. Specifically, the designating directions have been amended to add additional functions, allowing the site to undertake new fuel manufacturing activities.
	Any new developments on the site will be subject to regulatory and other consenting processes.

Questions for Written Answer: Correction

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In reply to a Question from my noble friend Lord Woolmer, my noble friend Lord Faulkner said that Ofgem was against removing the co-firing cap. As my noble friend is aware, this is not the case. In its response to the renewables obligation consultation in October last year, it said:
	"No we don't agree with the proposal to retain the cap on co-firing. We would like to see the cap removed going forward. The cap potentially disadvantages independent co-firing generators if vertically integrated suppliers self-supply a considerable proportion of their demand for co-firing ROCs. This would mean that the market for independent generators may be smaller than that implied by the cap. We also are concerned that the cap constrains the contribution to our renewable energy targets from a relatively low-cost renewable technology. This might be the case if independent generators constrain output below the level at which they perceive there is a risk that a supplier with demand for ROCs could negotiate ROC price discounts. We also think the concerns about the potential volatility of co-firing volumes could have on ROC prices are overstated. This is because of the reduction in the number of ROC given to co-firing (down to 0.5 ROC/MWh) and the headroom will effectively set the size of the obligation from 2010-11".
	I would also like to clarify that Ofgem's response is available on its website at http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/Policy/Documents1/RFI %20response.pdf, and summaries of the 733 responses received to the RFI consultation are available on our website at http://decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations /elec_financial/elec_financial.aspx. The actual responses-less some confidential material-are available at http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/elec_ financial/elec_financial.aspx.

Review Body on Senior Salaries

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made the following Statement.
	The Review Body on Senior Salaries' Initial Report on Public Sector Senior Remuneration 2010 (Cm 7848) is being published today. I commissioned this report in December alongside the publication of Putting the Frontline First: Smarter Government (Cm 7753). The report includes a set of principles for senior pay embedded in a code of practice on top-level reward. It is recommended that this code is adopted across the public sector after a period of consultation.
	Copies of the report have been laid in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I am grateful to the chairman and those involved in the review for their work.
	The Government welcome the initial report, which builds on the other measures which I have announced to ensure value for money from senior pay in the public sector, including:
	the decision not to increase base pay for the Senior Civil Service, the judiciary, the senior military, very senior NHS managers, hospital consultants, independent contractor general medical and dental practitioners and government Ministers in 2010-11 (q.v. Official Report, 10 Mar 2010 cols 16WS ff);the new arrangements for scrutiny, transparency and accountability set out in the 2009 Pre-Budget Report (Cm 7747), in particular the requirement for approval by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or public justification of salaries in excess of £150,000 and bonuses greater than £50,000, and publication of the names of those earning more than £150,000 and the numbers of those earning more than £50,000; andtough decisions to deliver savings of £100 million annually within three years from reducing unnecessary civil service bureaucracy and the cost of the Senior Civil Service, and to seek a 1 per cent cap on basic pay uplifts across the public sector for 2011-12 and 2012-13, generating savings of £3.4 billion a year by 2012-13.
	The Government agree with the report's findings that a clearer framework is needed for those that make decisions on senior pay. Pay decisions in all public sector organisations should wherever possible be determined by independent remuneration committees and there should be clear escalation mechanism in each sector for any proposals to pay above agreed norms.
	In line with the terms of reference of the review, I will now commission the review body to develop sector-specific benchmark ranges for senior pay. I will ask the review body to begin with local authority chief executives and senior managers in the health sector, reporting by the end of 2010. It will then consider the position in further and higher education by March 2011.
	The Government will work with the review body to determine how the code should be implemented in each sector, and to determine what legislative and non-statutory means are most appropriate to enforce compliance. The Government believe that the key organisations and representative bodies in each sector should be involved in the process of implementation, and that all public sector organisations should set out publicly how they intend to comply with the code by the end of year.